Wednesday, November 30, 2016

With the caveats about the reliability and precision of exit polling data kept in mind, consider that Hispanics went from 10% to 11% of the national electorate between 2012 and 2016, an increase of about 10%. In California, Hispanics went from 22% to 31% between 2012 and 2016, an increase of about 40%. Some 30% of the nation's total Hispanic population lives in California.

That means that California alone accounted for the entire increase in nationwide Hispanic turnout between 2012 and 2016. Solely accounted for it and then some, to be precise--the numbers actually suggest that Hispanic turnout in the other 49 states modestly declined between 2012 and 2016.

We have seen the future and it is, without a significant change of course, California.

Here's to hoping that the golden state acts as a window into the future on another thing--secession.

The most probable path I'd conceived of up to this point was through Texit. Texas exits the union, the electoral college immediately becomes unwinnable for Republicans, and a secession cascade is triggered.

Well, a similar dynamic is in play with a Calexit except that the blue states are the ones that start bailing. Hasta la vista, baby.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Nature smiles at the union of freedom and equality in our utopias. For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies.

If Nature smiles at the union of freedom and equality in our utopias, She bursts into laughter at the union of freedom, equality, and diversity in our utopias. When one prevails, the other two die.

Liberty, equality, or diversity--choose one. Just one.

Even the most nightmarish Orwellian IngSoc state, with zero liberty, will fail to make diversity and equality compatible. Asian men and black women will still have relatively lower SMVs than others, black infants will still die at higher rates than non-black infants, etc.

That the Cathedral favors diversity over the other two is the Occident's great tragedy. There is plenty of room for moral, empirical, pragmatic, and dialectical arguments and correspondingly differing positions on relative preferences for equality and for liberty in a healthy society.

Looking at the search results by state, I got a chuckle when I saw Montana, Spencer's primary residence, as the top result. I wonder if Whitefish has the highest per capita search volume in the country. At some level, all politics are indeed local!

Contesting the sagacity of the titular saying is that unlike when the wicked witch called us out, top search results included things from guys like Jared Taylor, Jeff Deist, and Spencer himself.

It dwarfs that of other leading Alt Right-ish figures. Spencer is now the recognized name--and face--of the Alt Right, and he's also now associated with leading a Nazi salute (claims that Roman military salutes were the intention are optically immaterial as is the fact that he merely raised his water glass in toast) to close out a speech where he urged people of European descent to conquer and destroy. The provocative use of the German word "lugenpresse" has been used in Germany over the last couple of years, but the connection to Nazism is what will stick in America.

Of course they'll call us Nazis, -ists, -phobics, and all the other deplorable identifiers regardless of what we say or do. But over the last several years, and the last 18 months in particular, those charges have become risible. The general public now increasingly dismisses them as indicative of empty virtue-signalling and hypocritical double-standards.

As these deterrents have ceased to any longer deter, people have fumbled their way to our ideas, our issues, and our conceptions. They resonate. They identify what so many people feel in their guts to be true about what the West is becoming--or unbecoming. The conference title "become who we are" encapsulates this perfectly. The meat of Spencer's speech is great, some of the most rhetorically effective stuff I've ever heard him say, and I've been following for almost a decade now.

White people don't want anything to do with Nazism, though. Nazism doesn't symbolize European unity. To the contrary, it symbolizes the most self-destructive, nearly suicidal episode in the 2,500 year history of the West. It strips away the empirical and familial foundations of civic nationalism (or white nationalism for that matter) and replaces it with white supremacy, and it's the team name of the losers to boot.

The number of people--normal, salt-of-the-earth Trump people--who are moving (and being moved by events) towards a sense of racial identity is orders of magnitude greater than the people who will look into a movement that splashes in WWII-era German words, gives the Nazi salute, and talks about conquering and destroying. And now whenever the term "Alt Right" comes up, so will images--real images, video from people standing in front of Spencer as he says "hail Trump"--of 'neo-Nazis' giving the HH salute.

Speaking of looking into the movement, untold numbers of potential recruits found their way to us as a consequence of Hillary Clinton's bizarre speech denouncing the Alt Right. Beyond the immediate news headlines from her speech, those who went looking found articles, posts, podcasts, and videos from Alt Rightists giving introductions and summaries of what the Alt Right is, what it stands for, and what it hopes to accomplish:

NPI's 2016 conference and subsequent theatrics have given even more attention to the Alt Right than the wicked witch did, but now instead of sending people to Jared Taylor or Richard Spencer or Jeff Deist to have it explained to them, search results will forever bring up video of people yelling "hail Trump" and giving Nazi salutes.

People will continue to move in our direction. It remains to be seen if the Alt Right is able to continue to function as an umbrella term for dissidents on the right as that dissidence fractures along fault lines of civic nationalism, white nationalism, and white supremacism.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Here's the graphic accompanying the portal into Reuters/Ipsos' poll in which participants were asked, on election day (this looks like it could be Steve Sailer's missing R/I exit poll, but at least up to this point, isn't being fully released), if they agreed or disagreed with the statement, "These days I feel like a stranger in my own country":

So it's illegal immigrants, Muslims, blacks, SWPLs, and all the other constituencies that must be cobbled together to create the Coalition of the Fringes that are feeling lost as the country regresses, then?

To an extent, yes, in that plurality of the country as a whole expresses the sentiment of feeling like a stranger in American society. Bowling--or, increasingly, holing up and watching Youtube or Netflix--Alone; the story of 21st century multicult America.

But Core America is where the alienation is the most acute. It's Middle Americans who really feel like barbarians living within the gates.

The following table shows the percentages who agree--that is, who express feelings of alienation--by the limited demographic characteristics available and with the non-committal and "don't know" responses removed. The sample size is huge (n = 45,122):

Group

Stranger

White Republicans

72.9%

Republicans

72.2%

Hispanic Republicans

69.2%

Independents

65.3%

Hispanics (all)

60.8%

Black Republicans

59.3%

Whites (all)

59.0%

Blacks (all)

54.5%

Hispanic Democrats

54.4%

Black Democrats

53.2%

Democrats

43.3%

White Democrats

38.7%

Nearly 3-in-4 white Republicans sense that the country is becoming unrecognizable. The cold culture war (that is heating up) continues to pit goodwhites on one side and deplorables on the other.

The first time I recall viscerally feeling a connection to the Trump movement, back in late summer 2015, was when I heard Trump say "We're taking our country back from these people" at one of his rallies. I wasn't alone:

Hamilton is hell for tradcon propositionalists. It follows historical events pretty accurately and some of the founding fathers are protagonists. There's no angle for criticism. It doesn't even occur to them that Pence showing up to such an ethnomasochistic production is regrettable.

The best they can do in the current situation is point out that the cast was pulling a publicity stunt and that if their real objective was to communicate their concerns to the VP-elect they could've requested a meeting backstage before or after the performance, that it's not a first amendment issue because Trump isn't saying they don't have the right to speak, etc.

For the Alt Right, informed by identitarianism, the analysis is easy--Hamilton is virtue-signaling ahistorical claptrap because demography is destiny. Who you are is more important than what you profess to believe in a particular time and place, earnestly or otherwise. Rather than lose battle after battle in the culture war by stubbornly refusing on principle to engage the enemy using the same guerrilla tactics that it uses against us as the Respectable Right has done for decades, the Alt Right employs CultMarx tactics against the CultMarxists with deadly effectiveness.

If the country's founding demography resembled the cast of Hamilton, we'd likely to be living in a country more reminiscent of Haiti or Liberia than of 21st century America. Turning Hamilton into a Diversicrat is ridiculous. He was, to put it mildly, an immigration skeptic. He was part of a George Washington administration that supported the Naturalization Act of 1790 restricting naturalization to "free white persons of good character".

We're more favorably inclined towards the criticism of dead white males than we are of this character fungibility. In the case of the former, the battle lines are clearly drawn. When we get revisionism like this, though, that attempts to rewrite our heritage rather than just myopically viewing the past through the lens of 21st century CultMarx leftism, it's time to draw steel.

Though Trump isn't consciously aware of what's in play here, the greatness of his instincts are once again confirmed. He didn't have to make an issue out of this, but President I-am-your-voice sensed that he ought to and acted accordingly.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

In response to the public pillorying of Mike Pence, #BoycottHamilton started up. Yes, it's silly to think a status-signalling display of conspicuous consumption where the dynamic is one of artificially restricted supply designed to insure demand remains unsatisfied is vulnerable to a boycott, but the reactions to the aspiring boycott are useful for revealing to the middle (and the bottom) how much the top despises it:

To give the shiv a little twist, keep in mind that Trump did better in flyover country and in rural areas where the cost-of-living tends to be lower than on the coasts and in densely populated areas where Clinton did better. Consequently the Trump voters' advantage in terms of real standard-of-living is even greater than is their advantage in terms of nominal income.

The poll results were averaged except for the few cases where no polling had been conducted since October 1--in those states, the most recent poll was used as the RCP 'average'. There was no polling data available at all in four states. They are colored in black on the map. The rest of the states are colored according to how greatly Trump exceeded/fell short of polling expectations, the darker the greater his over-/under-performance. The five states where the RCP average was within half a percentage point of the actual results are shaded in an off-white color.

State

O/(U)

West Virginia

24.2

Oklahoma

21.4

South Dakota

19.1

Tennessee

16.2

Kentucky

12.8

Alaska

12.2

Maryland

10.8

South Carolina

10.1

Missouri

9.6

Delaware

9.5

Indiana

8.6

Minnesota

8.0

Wisconsin

7.5

Iowa

6.6

Ohio

6.4

Louisiana

5.7

Montana

5.5

Rhode Island

5.4

Arkansas

5.1

Kansas

4.5

Michigan

3.9

Utah

3.7

Mississippi

3.5

Pennsylvania

3.3

North Carolina

3.0

Connecticut

2.8

Maine

2.8

Idaho

2.6

Massachusetts

2.1

Georgia

0.9

Florida

0.9

Virginia

0.4

Colorado

0.1

Arizona

0.1

New Hampshire

0.0

Vermont

(0.5)

Nebraska

(0.7)

New York

(0.8)

New Jersey

(1.8)

Texas

(2.4)

Oregon

(2.6)

Nevada

(3.2)

New Mexico

(3.3)

Washington

(3.3)

Illinois

(4.5)

California

(6.5)

No data for
AL/HI/ND/WY

One thing that immediately jumps out is the tendency for the winner of non-competitive states to significantly exceed polling expectations (ie Trump doing even better than the lopsided polls suggested in dark red states like West Virginia and Oklahoma and Clinton doing better than the polls predicted in dark blue states like California and Illinois). The correlation between the margin of Trump's victory/defeat and his over-/under-performance relative to the polls is an impressive .63 (p-value = .0000002).

Another thing that astute commentators noted from the beginning but that the polling agencies never fully picked up on was the nationwide east-west divide. The dynamics in play here are the rootedness, manufacturing, and populism of the east versus the transplanted, service-oriented, libertarianism of the west. Trump did better than expected in the east and worse than expected in the west.

A few comments on where the polls went especially wrong:

- They drastically underestimated how the subjects of Hillbilly Elegy would come out in droves for Trump. These are the forgotten Americans he spoke aboutagain and again during the campaign. They were as forgotten by the pollsters as they are by the political class.

- Hispanics--illegal or otherwise--responded to the threat that the reconquista could be coming to an end by shaking off a bit of their apathy to vote at higher-than-expected rates.

Parenthetically, the exit polls should be viewed with the same skepticism that the pre-election polls were correctly viewed with. It's highly unlikely that if blacks dropped from 13% of the electorate in 2012 to 12% in 2016 that the percentage of voters with no more than a high school education dropped from 24% in 2012 to just 18% in 2016, even though that's what the exit polls--which initially indicated a comfortable Clinton win before being sloppily adjusted in light of the actual results--show. We'll have to wait for the Census and eventually the GSS for more precise and reliable data.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

- Bernie Sanders is the most tragic figure of this election. He was perfectly positioned to come out of this as the left's moral and spiritual leader if he had played his cards right. Instead, he chose the role of Judas Iscariot and he didn't even get his silver coins because Hillary lost. It's too bad.

He's now the president-elect. Most people, including those who voted against him, want him to succeed for obvious reasons. It's easy for those of us who follow this stuff closely to forget how so many people have seen nothing from Trump beyond bits and pieces of media presentations of him up to this point.

His victory speech, save for the debates, was the most watched of anything he's done. A lot of people were legitimately making their first serious evaluation of him in the presidential role. He was gracious, conciliatory, good-humored--in a word, "presidential".

For the tens of millions of people who aren't particularly ideological or invested in politics, it'll leave a good taste in a lot of people's mouths. The contrast to the hysterical, destructive, often violent reactions of the rabble taking to the streets and to social media to express their burning hatred couldn't be starker.

FDR's election revealed the awesome political potential of radio. JFK's election revealed the awesome political potential of television. Trump's election has now revealed the awesome political potential of the internet in general and social media in particular.

The media landscape has changed forever. The walls have totally crumbled around the gatekeepers. The narrative has become impossible for the Establishment to control.

Trump will do well to remember that. It's prudent to allow Donald to be Donald--after all, he did the putatively impossible. But he should also be aware that the weapon that brought him here can just as soon bring him down if he reneges on too much of what he pledged.

Ref favors you over your opponent or he's fair
to both, those are your available responses

- Speaking of the exit polling entree, salt is recommended on the side. The early results now infamously indicated a relatively comfortable Hillary win and had to be adjusted accordingly after the actual tallies came in.

Even after said adjustments, some of what is reported remains dubious. For example, in isolation this item insinuates a veritable Trumpslide:

And the one that hits closest to home if we're zeroing in not on cucks but on their allies, allies who maintain the alliance only for the sake of political expediency:

Romney, in his losing effort, did better with Jews than Trump did in his winning effort. Obama only bested Romney 69%-30%.

Trump didn't need their money, their public support, or their votes. He won without any of those things and now he's not beholden to them. It's not just Jonah and his moribund publication that has been left out in the cold, it's the (((people))) he cares most about who are on the outside looking in as well.

- Speaking of God's chosen people, let's give God's other chosen people a bit of credit for mostly coming through in the end:

Early on one of the many #NeverTrump's talking points that would ultimately be proven humiliatingly incorrect was the claim that Trump wouldn't even manage to win dark red Utah. In an effort to turn that claim into a self-fulfilling prophecy, they poured everything they had into an Egg McMuffin. The sandwich was subsequently crushed. Trump won the state decisively, garnering almost as many votes there as Hillary and the sandwich combined did.

- Pointing out that Hillary won the popular vote is like pointing out that a losing football team racked up more total offensive yards than the team that beat them did. It's nothing more than trvia. It's irrelevant because racking up offensive yards isn't the objective.

Voter turnout in uncompetitive states is naturally suppressed, especially so among voters on the losing side. When Trump won the Nebraska primary it wasn't because he was more popular there than Cruz, it was because Cruz had already dropped out of the race and so fewer of his supporters bothered showing up to vote for him.

If voters knew the popular vote was determinative and Trump had held rallies up and down the West coast and in New England instead of trying to squeeze every last drop out of Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, and Florida, the final numbers would not have been the same and Trump would've likely won the popular vote as well.

That's hypothetical speculation, of course. The rules must be changed before the game begins for them to matter.

Let us, then, continue to dance while they continue to wail and gnash their teeth:

Thursday, November 10, 2016

As they scurry away to the swamps of Ravenna, the enemies of the Trumpening are grabbing at anything that can reassure them of their own moral superiority at such a dark, dark moment in their lives (spoiler alert: It gets darker for them still). This clip has been one of the more prominently displayed of their recently discovered holy relics:

Trump never said anything critical of blacks during the campaign. He did better among blacks than Romney or McCain did even with the entire media complex and a black president aligned against him.

Trump's theme was very clearly American vs non-American, and the assertion that the good of the former should be the driving factor in how the government deals with the latter. It's ridiculous how difficult it is for many people to grasp this, but it was plain from the beginning.

That said, there is no time for this lugubrious, mawkish crap.

Where was Van Jones when NFL teams, politicians (both Democrat and Republican--we're looking at you, Rand), celebrities, the attorney general, and the media establishment were putting their hands up in imitation of Michael Brown's totally fictitious "hands up, don't shoot"? The only thing Brown used his hands for was punching Darrin Wilson and trying to take his gun.

Explain to your kids how an innocent white man doing a dangerous job in an impeccably professional manner has had to drop off the face of the earth because the powers that be wanted to turn a criminal into an angel and a decent, salt-of-the-earth middle American into a sacrificial lamb for the sake of Who? Whom?

Wilson is emblematic of why working-class white men, the only demographic in the country without a single group that stands up for them, came out more than 3-to-1 in favor of Donald "I am your voice" Trump.

Tuesday, November 08, 2016

Eighteen months fighting the political establishment, big business, the media-industrial complex, the Obama administration, Hollywood, the SJWs, the 1%, the dishonest polling industry (Nate, we even tried to warn you after you so horribly botched the primaries that you should be careful with the general), the rigged system, the Pope, the lobbyists, the NeverTrump cucks!

We were spit on, laughed at, mocked, threatened, assaulted, dismissed. We suffered blood libel as the media falsely slandered us for instigating violence when it was the Hillary campaign that was hiring the mentally ill to attack us at rallies.

Trump asked for us to stand with him and pledged to stand with us in return.

Build the wall! Drain the swamp! Bye bye, Obamacare. Political correctness and self-immolating principles are out, white identity and American interests are in. Hillary, get ready for a zealous AG to crucify you for being the most corrupt politician in American history.

More Republicans than Democrats have voted. More independents say they'll vote for Trump than for Hillary, yet she has a six point lead in early voting?

The only way this adds up is if early voting Republicans (and independents) are especially supportive of Hillary relative to Republican and independent Floridians as a whole.

It's possible, but it seems improbable. Unless we're talking about an army of hundreds of thousands of Erick Eriksons waddling in early, the presumption should be that Republicans who are toying with the idea of crossing party lines to vote for the witch are going to wait until the last minute to turncoat. They're not going to do so weeks in advance when new information keeps coming on a daily basis. The ones who are voting early are the ones who are the ones without a question in their minds as to who they're going to vote for.

On the other hand, there are numerous reports of large numbers of Hispanics among the in-person early voters, so the fix could already be in.

As the time for conjecture wraps up, I'll offer my electoral college prediction, albeit a prediction with far less confidence than those made throughout the primary season:

Reading the entrails more audaciously still, we see that Pennsylvania will be closer than the polls have indicated over the last couple of months, and credible evidence for voter fraud out of Philadelphia will cast a heavy cloud of skepticism over the results.

Sunday, November 06, 2016

Headlines from RCP and USA Today, respectively. They ran a mere day apart from one another:

Are these people truly this incompetent or is Obama subtly sowing discord and confusion among Hillary's ranks? My money is on the former, or as Steve Sailer likes to say, that they're not even trying anymore.

Friday, November 04, 2016

In 2012, Democrats had a 3%-5% advantage (depending on the source) at the same point in the cycle.

So Republicans are up a couple thousand votes now and Democrats were up 50,000 at the same point four years ago. Big deal, there are more outstanding Democrat ballots than Republican ones. Democrats will probably narrowly reclaim the early voting advantage by election day.

That's not why Trump looks like the better bet here. Independents and unaffiliated voters are the reason he does.

Wednesday, November 02, 2016

A SurveyUSA poll has Trump up by seven in the tar heel state. The poll contains a few potentially huge indicators of a Trump winning the presidency if they scale nationally.

- Among blacks, Hillary's lead is only 84%-14%, and 72% of Trump's blacks supporters say they are voting for him "enthusiastically"; 65% of Hillary's blacks say the same about her.

Even if we discount those who indicate they'll vote for him "with reservations" and who are "not sure" about their level of enthusiasm entirely, that's still Trump getting 10%. When Romney won the state in 2012, exit polling showed him getting just 4% of blacks.

- Trump is outperforming the Republican senatorial candidate by 2 points, the Republican gubernatorial candidate by 4 points, and the Republican attorney general candidate by 8 points. All of these Republican candidates are incumbents.

Many a spineless cuck has shed crocodile tears over Trump putatively hurting down-ballot Republicans. To the contrary, it looks as though Republicans in tight races who let go of Trump's coattails when their paymasters swore for the 13th time that Trump's campaign was moribund are the ones who are going to crash and burn [Edit: I likely overstated this: See Jeffery's comment].

The GOPe just doesn't understand how unpopular it is. As has been said here before, the Republican party is undeservedly fortunate to attach it's name to Trump, not the other way around.

- Among those aged 18-34, Hillary leads 45%-42%. That marginal advantage is dwarfed by Obama's performance in 2012 when he got over 60% of the under-35 vote in North Carolina.

Blacks and younger--two of Obama's electoral pillars--are going to turn out at lower rates than they did in '08 and '12. Among those who do, support for Hillary is going to be weaker than it was for Obama.

Tangentially, among those aged 18-34, 55% suspect that voter fraud occurs either "often" or "sometimes". That's higher than among any other age group. For all other age groups the figure is less than 50%.

Trump is finally opening up the campaign war chest with a $25 million ad blitz in several states putatively considered safe bets for Hillary. We're in the final stretch. Now is the time to pour it on.

The fence-sitting cucks will come on their own if they're going to. Probably better to try and dissuade sincere progressives who are planning on an unenthusiastic "lesser-of-two-evils" Hillary vote. They won't be peeled off to vote for Trump, but they are susceptible to staying home or voting third-party.

I've been spreading the following around in social media outlets. The purpose is rhetorical. Feel free to share freely.

---

It's not just the alternative media on the right that is rising from the ashes of the corrupt lapdog "journalists" in dinosaur organizations like, to pick a random example, CNN. Here are the Young Turks--more-or-less the Info Wars of the left--breaking news on Hillary Clinton being fed questions in a town hall against Trump:

Hillary didn't legitimately win any of the debates--in the primaries or in the general election--she cheated her way through. Notice at 3:31 in the video, when the camera cuts to Hillary, she's looking down at her notes. She was clearly doing so while the question was being asked as well because she was reviewing her notes on how she was going to answer the question that Brazile fed to her beforehand.

While we attack the power structure from the right, it's encouraging to see the Jill Steins and Young Turks attacking it from the left.

Hillary is the most corrupt presidential candidate in US history. The Nixons and the LBJs of American history don't even come close.

We all would've preferred the election to be between Trump and Sanders. Heads-we-win, tails-you-lose. It can still be win-win, though. This is the best chance in decades that a third-party has had to qualify for federal election campaign funds next go-round. If Jill Stein gets 5% of the popular vote, the Green Party gets over $30 million in federal funding to spend in 2020.